When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Geopolitics

The West Must Face Reality: Iran's Nuclear Program Can't Be Stopped

The West is insisting on reviving a nuclear pact with Iran. However, this will only postpone the inevitable moment when the regime declares it has a nuclear bomb. The only solution is regime change.

The West Must Face Reality: Iran's Nuclear Program Can't Be Stopped

Talks to renew the 2015 pact have lasted for 16 months but some crucial sticking points remain.

Hamed Mohammadi

-OpEd-

Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear inspectorate, declared on Sept. 7 that Iran already had more than enough uranium for an atomic bomb. He said the IAEA could no longer confirm that the Islamic Republic has a strictly peaceful nuclear program as it has always claimed because the agency could not properly inspect sites inside Iran.

The Islamic Republic may have shown flexibility in some of its demands in the talks to renew the 2015 nuclear pact with world powers, a preliminary framework reached between Iran and the P5+1 (the U.S., the U.K., China, Russia, France and Germany). For example, it no longer insists that the West delist its Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. But it has kept its crucial promise that unless Western powers lift all economic sanctions, the regime will boost its uranium reserves and their level of enrichment, as well as restrict the IAEA's access to installations.

Talks to renew the 2015 pact have been going on for 16 months. European diplomacy has resolved most differences between the sides, but some crucial sticking points remain.


For 20 years now, the Islamic Republic's dogged pursuit of nuclear power and its showdown with the West over this and other issues have been so costly and harmful to Iranian national interests as to even prompt regime sympathizers to speak up. Some are asking, belatedly perhaps, why the country even needs a peaceful nuclear program when it is bathed in sunshine 300 days a year. Why has the state spent billions of dollars to generate power in the Bushehr atomic plant (on the Persian Gulf), when it generates less than 2% of all electricity made in Iran.

The power plant has had a drop in production for the fourth year running and is generating debt instead. Yet Iranian officials say they want to build more nuclear power plants. The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Muhammad Islami, has claimed the country had no "problems funding" their construction, when the state can barely pay the Russians (for their fuel) in Bushehr and has had to pay through oil and gas swaps.

A skeptical West

Iranian officials insist this nuclear program will bring advances in the fields of medicine, pharmaceuticals and agriculture. It is difficult to believe the claims when the regime's overall conduct barely indicates concern for healthcare or a flourishing farming sector. Besides, none of these require uranium enrichment to be hiked to 60% and 90% levels. The country's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, once issued a religious edict forbidding nuclear weapons, which Iranian officials keep citing as proof that Iran is not after the bomb.

Yet the West remains skeptical.

Others among the Iranian elite take more ambivalent positions, or even cite justifications for nuclear armaments. Some have said nuclear weapons should not be "demonized" if they can enhance the Islamic Republic's strategic defense and survival. One prominent former MP, Ali Mottahari, has ventured to say that from the very start of this program, "our intention was to build a bomb."

Those who defend the bomb are precisely the regime's most repressive elements. One of them is the Guards veteran and current parliamentarian Ismail Kowsari, who has been active in the past in suppressing street protests. He recently said "we can turn the 60% enrichment into 93% enrichment, which means a nuclear bomb." Another one is Amir'ali Hajizadeh, head of the Revolutionary Guards aerospace division and suspected to have ordered a passenger plane shot down in Tehran in 2020. His unit is developing long-range missiles able to deliver nuclear warheads.

Ali Khamenei, once issued a religious edict forbidding nuclear weapons, which Iranian officials keep citing as proof that Iran is not after the bomb.

Iranian Supreme Leader's Office/ZUMA

No qualms about sending Iranians to die

Some observers say there is no real cause for alarm, as the regime would or could not ultimately use a nuclear weapon. They seem to forget that those pushing for a bomb in Iran are the same ones who crush protests and have brought regional countries to a state of ruin.

The Islamic Republic may be close to a conflict.

In his testament, the late Revolutionary Guards general Qasem Suleimani described Iran as "Hussein's bastion," in a reference to the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, a figure revered by the Shias. Its downfall, the text suggests, would threaten the Islamic religion itself.

The people running the nuclear program have no qualms about sending Iranians to their deaths. In fact, they call it martyrdom.

The only solution is regime change

Western leaders know that another pact with this regime can only slow down its nuclear progression. With their unyielding devotion to diplomatic talks and economic sanctions, they are merely pushing the showdown with the Islamic Republic down the road. Perhaps some Western politicians believe or hope Iranians will have toppled the regime in the meantime.

Iran may be close to a conflict, though its scope is uncertain.

Israel's former prime minister, Ehud Barak, has written in Time magazine that it is too late to stop the Iranian regime's nuclear program. The only solution now, he says, is regime change. That is precisely what Iran's heir presumptive, Reza Pahlavi, has been telling Western powers for years, to little avail. The only "third option" to a destructive war or appeasing a deceitful regime, he has said, is to back the opposition of millions of Iranians to a corrupt elite.

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
Geopolitics

What Lula Needs Now To Win: Move To The Center And Mea Culpa

Despite the leftist candidate's first-place finish, the voter mood in Brazil's presidential campaign is clearly conservative. So Lula will have to move clearly to the political center to vanquish the divisive but still popular Jair Bolsonaro. He also needs to send a message of contrition to skeptical voters about past mistakes.

Brazilian votes show a polarized national opinion with two clear winners: former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and sitting president Jair Bolsonaro

Marcelo Cantelmi

-Analysis-

The first round of Brazil's presidential elections closed with two winners, a novelty but not necessarily a political surprise.

Leftist candidate and former president, Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, was clearly the winner. His victory came on the back of the successes of his two previous administrations (2003-2011), kept alive today by the harsh reality that large swathes of Brazilians see no real future for themselves.

Lula, the head of the Workers Party or PT, also moved a tad toward the political Center in a bid to seduce middle-class voters, with some success. Another factor in his first-round success was a decisive vote cast against the current government, though this was less considerable than anticipated.

The other big winner of the day was the sitting president, Jair Bolsonaro. For many voters, his defects turn out to be virtues. They were little concerned by his bombastic declarations, his authoritarian bent, contempt for modernity, his retrograde views on gender and his painful management of the pandemic. They do not believe in Lula, and envisage no other alternative.

Keep reading...Show less

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS

Central to the tragic absurdity of this war is the question of language. Vladimir Putin has repeated that protecting ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine was a driving motivation for his invasion.

Yet one month on, a quick look at the map shows that many of the worst-hit cities are those where Russian is the predominant language: Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson.

Watch VideoShow less
MOST READ